|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sand From The Future(GTD)
|
 Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 11:53 am
Slayer Igraine Sand From The Future(GTD) Slayer Igraine Sand From The Future(GTD) Slayer Igraine Maeph Wow yeah. Children are an extremely touchy subject. It's difficult to decide what you need to put in their face and what you don't. Religion , imho, is one of the things you don't. Religion is far too complicated and mysterious to be figured out by a child. To even teach a child that he can understand religion at such an age is setting him up for disaster. You suffocate them, because they are so much less likely to seek out alternative lifestyles and beliefs that could be much more beneficial to them as an individual. It'd not a dud argument, they just didn't word it correctly. To begin with, Biology is complicated, but it's based on fact. Where with all religeons, they can't be proven. Same applies with teaching a child Mathematics, maybe even more so because it's quite a vital skill in the world we live in AND there's no doubt on whether it's true or not because human being created maths entirely by themselves and defined everything inside that subject. This thread isn't asking if it's wrong teaching children ABOUT religion, this thread's asking whether it's wrong to force a specific religion on a child. So, Maeph's argument isn't a dud. You've just misunderstood the entire thread. Good going.
The "thread" may be asking about forcing religion, but I was responding to a specific point made by one person. Is that so hard to understand? I don't deny that I'm impolite, but I'm only impolite to people who I think are impolite themselves. Implying someone's impolite, isn't polite, so you're also being hypocritical on top of being impolite. I read the specific point you speak of, I referred to it in one of my previous quotes. Their argument did not speak of teaching ABOUT religions either, it said that they wouldn't be able to understand the concepts of a religion and what they're all about and that they believe it's wrong to force religion on children. So uh... You're wrong. Good going, once again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 1:13 pm
I honestly think it is horribly detrimental to impose a dogmatic view of the world on a child. I'm not suggesting beliefs be hidden from them. However, I think they shouldn't be taught "this is the only way."
EVERYONE needs t ocome to their own conclusion. Things like the example of Jesus camp, are just forms of brainwashing. I upsets me greatly because these kids follow beliefs they are so far from being capable of understanding.
If I ever decided to take care of a child. I would teach them the basics of buddhism. I would them to understand my views on morals and ethics and how others should be treated. I would hate to think that I would tell any child to not think for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 8:21 pm
You are not supposed to force ANYTHING on ANYONE. That point aside, I would raise my children (when I have some) in the Catholic religion. But I would give them the bare basic facts about it and let them discover the rest on their own. My parents knew for a long time that I doubted my religion until some pretty amazing (and kinda creepy) stuff happened.
These kids in Jesus Camp make me wonder what exactly is happening. These kids need to learn that there are other views. They're too young to make their own religious decisions.
Also, with the part about not allowing the Harry Potter books in, if the people actually paid attention and dug a bit into the book, they'd realize that the books are a fight between good and evil! I'm screwed if a crazy extreme Evangelical searches my room at home (lots of fantasy books....)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:44 am
Sand From The Future(GTD) Slayer Igraine Sand From The Future(GTD) Slayer Igraine Sand From The Future(GTD) It'd not a dud argument, they just didn't word it correctly. To begin with, Biology is complicated, but it's based on fact. Where with all religeons, they can't be proven. Same applies with teaching a child Mathematics, maybe even more so because it's quite a vital skill in the world we live in AND there's no doubt on whether it's true or not because human being created maths entirely by themselves and defined everything inside that subject. This thread isn't asking if it's wrong teaching children ABOUT religion, this thread's asking whether it's wrong to force a specific religion on a child. So, Maeph's argument isn't a dud. You've just misunderstood the entire thread. Good going.
The "thread" may be asking about forcing religion, but I was responding to a specific point made by one person. Is that so hard to understand? I don't deny that I'm impolite, but I'm only impolite to people who I think are impolite themselves. Implying someone's impolite, isn't polite, so you're also being hypocritical on top of being impolite. I read the specific point you speak of, I referred to it in one of my previous quotes. Their argument did not speak of teaching ABOUT religions either, it said that they wouldn't be able to understand the concepts of a religion and what they're all about and that they believe it's wrong to force religion on children. So uh... You're wrong. Good going, once again.
His argument was that children wouldn't be able to fully comprehend religion, so we shouldn't teach it at all; my response was that we could teach certain things about religion.
So... uh... No, I don't think I was wrong. I think you're just clutching at straws here. Let's just drop it. We're even more off topic than previously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sand From The Future(GTD)
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:31 am
Slayer Igraine Sand From The Future(GTD) Slayer Igraine Sand From The Future(GTD) Slayer Igraine Sand From The Future(GTD) It'd not a dud argument, they just didn't word it correctly. To begin with, Biology is complicated, but it's based on fact. Where with all religeons, they can't be proven. Same applies with teaching a child Mathematics, maybe even more so because it's quite a vital skill in the world we live in AND there's no doubt on whether it's true or not because human being created maths entirely by themselves and defined everything inside that subject. This thread isn't asking if it's wrong teaching children ABOUT religion, this thread's asking whether it's wrong to force a specific religion on a child. So, Maeph's argument isn't a dud. You've just misunderstood the entire thread. Good going.
The "thread" may be asking about forcing religion, but I was responding to a specific point made by one person. Is that so hard to understand? I don't deny that I'm impolite, but I'm only impolite to people who I think are impolite themselves. Implying someone's impolite, isn't polite, so you're also being hypocritical on top of being impolite. I read the specific point you speak of, I referred to it in one of my previous quotes. Their argument did not speak of teaching ABOUT religions either, it said that they wouldn't be able to understand the concepts of a religion and what they're all about and that they believe it's wrong to force religion on children. So uh... You're wrong. Good going, once again.
His argument was that children wouldn't be able to fully comprehend religion, so we shouldn't teach it at all; my response was that we could teach certain things about religion.
So... uh... No, I don't think I was wrong. I think you're just clutching at straws here. Let's just drop it. We're even more off topic than previously. Being impolite to someone that's also impolite isn't hypocritical, but calling someone else impolite, when you yourself are impolite is being hypocritical, you'd have known that if you understood the definition of the word, which you obviously don't. Maeph's argument said that they wouldn't understand, or need religion at such a young age, and that forcing one upon a child is wrong. Maeph gave an answer, and valid reasons why they chose that answer. You said it was a dud because they teach children things like Biology in school, a subject that's hard to comprehend. But you totally missed the point that Biology is based on fact, and religion isn't. Thus, their statement isn't a dud. You ARE the one that first brought up the concept of teaching children ABOUT religion, you said this in defense to prove their argument was a dud. No one was talking about the act of teaching ABOUT religion, but whether or not an entire religion should be FORCED upon a child. So you just went off topic and said something irrelevant. Saying an argument is fallacious is certainly ok, if it's what you believe, but the way you said it was fallacious was impolite, in my eyes. It's like if you called a man that's attracted to other men a "F-ggot" instead of a "Homosexual". They're both correct, but one's impolite, the other isn't. I'll drop this subject if that's what you want, but I hope that you take something from what I'm saying and in future try to be more polite to people that haven't been impolite to you. So much for third time lucky...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 10:42 am
Sand From The Future(GTD) Slayer Igraine Sand From The Future(GTD) Slayer Igraine Sand From The Future(GTD) This thread isn't asking if it's wrong teaching children ABOUT religion, this thread's asking whether it's wrong to force a specific religion on a child. So, Maeph's argument isn't a dud. You've just misunderstood the entire thread. Good going.
The "thread" may be asking about forcing religion, but I was responding to a specific point made by one person. Is that so hard to understand? I don't deny that I'm impolite, but I'm only impolite to people who I think are impolite themselves. Implying someone's impolite, isn't polite, so you're also being hypocritical on top of being impolite. I read the specific point you speak of, I referred to it in one of my previous quotes. Their argument did not speak of teaching ABOUT religions either, it said that they wouldn't be able to understand the concepts of a religion and what they're all about and that they believe it's wrong to force religion on children. So uh... You're wrong. Good going, once again.
His argument was that children wouldn't be able to fully comprehend religion, so we shouldn't teach it at all; my response was that we could teach certain things about religion.
So... uh... No, I don't think I was wrong. I think you're just clutching at straws here. Let's just drop it. We're even more off topic than previously. Being impolite to someone that's also impolite isn't hypocritical, but calling someone else impolite, when you yourself are impolite is being hypocritical, you'd have known that if you understood the definition of the word, which you obviously don't. Maeph's argument said that they wouldn't understand, or need religion at such a young age, and that forcing one upon a child is wrong. Maeph gave an answer, and valid reasons why they chose that answer. You said it was a dud because they teach children things like Biology in school, a subject that's hard to comprehend. But you totally missed the point that Biology is based on fact, and religion isn't. Thus, their statement isn't a dud. You ARE the one that first brought up the concept of teaching children ABOUT religion, you said this in defense to prove their argument was a dud. No one was talking about the act of teaching ABOUT religion, but whether or not an entire religion should be FORCED upon a child. So you just went off topic and said something irrelevant. Saying an argument is fallacious is certainly ok, if it's what you believe, but the way you said it was fallacious was impolite, in my eyes. It's like if you called a man that's attracted to other men a "F-ggot" instead of a "Homosexual". They're both correct, but one's impolite, the other isn't. I'll drop this subject if that's what you want, but I hope that you take something from what I'm saying and in future try to be more polite to people that haven't been impolite to you. So much for third time lucky...
There are plenty enough other examples aside from biology - physics. More complex physics isn't based on fact, but theories and ideas. The complex areas of religion are based on theories and ideas, but there are still facts that can be taught at a young age. But what's the point in you debating this with me, if you believe I'm totally off topic and misunderstood everything, anway? You're indulging in something you told me I was wrong for saying, and insulted me for doing. That's a little bit silly.
Maybe we will both be wiser and politer next time. Let's face it, neither of us are perfect. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sand From The Future(GTD)
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:00 pm
Slayer Igraine Sand From The Future(GTD) Slayer Igraine Sand From The Future(GTD) Slayer Igraine Sand From The Future(GTD) This thread isn't asking if it's wrong teaching children ABOUT religion, this thread's asking whether it's wrong to force a specific religion on a child. So, Maeph's argument isn't a dud. You've just misunderstood the entire thread. Good going.
The "thread" may be asking about forcing religion, but I was responding to a specific point made by one person. Is that so hard to understand? I don't deny that I'm impolite, but I'm only impolite to people who I think are impolite themselves. Implying someone's impolite, isn't polite, so you're also being hypocritical on top of being impolite. I read the specific point you speak of, I referred to it in one of my previous quotes. Their argument did not speak of teaching ABOUT religions either, it said that they wouldn't be able to understand the concepts of a religion and what they're all about and that they believe it's wrong to force religion on children. So uh... You're wrong. Good going, once again.
His argument was that children wouldn't be able to fully comprehend religion, so we shouldn't teach it at all; my response was that we could teach certain things about religion.
So... uh... No, I don't think I was wrong. I think you're just clutching at straws here. Let's just drop it. We're even more off topic than previously. Being impolite to someone that's also impolite isn't hypocritical, but calling someone else impolite, when you yourself are impolite is being hypocritical, you'd have known that if you understood the definition of the word, which you obviously don't. Maeph's argument said that they wouldn't understand, or need religion at such a young age, and that forcing one upon a child is wrong. Maeph gave an answer, and valid reasons why they chose that answer. You said it was a dud because they teach children things like Biology in school, a subject that's hard to comprehend. But you totally missed the point that Biology is based on fact, and religion isn't. Thus, their statement isn't a dud. You ARE the one that first brought up the concept of teaching children ABOUT religion, you said this in defense to prove their argument was a dud. No one was talking about the act of teaching ABOUT religion, but whether or not an entire religion should be FORCED upon a child. So you just went off topic and said something irrelevant. Saying an argument is fallacious is certainly ok, if it's what you believe, but the way you said it was fallacious was impolite, in my eyes. It's like if you called a man that's attracted to other men a "F-ggot" instead of a "Homosexual". They're both correct, but one's impolite, the other isn't. I'll drop this subject if that's what you want, but I hope that you take something from what I'm saying and in future try to be more polite to people that haven't been impolite to you. So much for third time lucky...
There are plenty enough other examples aside from biology - physics. More complex physics isn't based on fact, but theories and ideas. The complex areas of religion are based on theories and ideas, but there are still facts that can be taught at a young age. But what's the point in you debating this with me, if you believe I'm totally off topic and misunderstood everything, anway? You're indulging in something you told me I was wrong for saying, and insulted me for doing. That's a little bit silly.
Maybe we will both be wiser and politer next time. Let's face it, neither of us are perfect. smile I wasn't being hypocritical because I didn't actually TELL you to DO anything. Seriously, go to Dictionary.com and check out the definition. You're the one that brought up the idea of dropping it, not me. I enjoy mindless 'debates' (Another word for an argument if I've ever seen one) as much as the next man, if you really wanted the subject to be dropped, you'd probably have done something crazy like not reply, but some might see that as being impolite. As far as Physics being based on Ideas and Theories... You're right, it is based on ideas and theories, but they don't teach complex Physics to children that don't understand it. In my school, it's an Elective for people who actually WANT to learn it. The complex stuff isn't forced upon children at a young age. So it's just a cr-p comparison and it takes nothing away from Maeph's previous argument. Not to mention the fact that you didn't even give it in your previous posts. I didn't say you were TOTALLY off topic, just that you went of the specific topic of this thread. Stop exaggerating to win a petty argument (At this point, I really hope you've read the definition so I don't get slandered for telling you to do something). Indulging myself like this is a bit silly sure, doesn't bother me though. Especially because you're the one that did it to begin with, and in turn gave me an excuse to do it, because I tried to explain the situation to you. So you were initally much more silly than I. I'm quite aware we all have our imperfections, that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least TRY to be better, and not use the excuse that we're only human. The ball's in your court again, enlighten me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 2:03 pm
Whether you told me to do anything or not doesn't affect whether you were hypocritical or not. Seriously, the 'look up the definition' line is getting old.' You were hypocritical because you said you're suggesting I should not be impolite to people who are not impolite to me - something which you are guilty of too.
Whether I gave physics as a example before is niether here nor there, and I don't know what exactly you're taking issue with there - I provided a new example when you questioned the last one - what's the problem with that?
Just because something is a certain way in your school doesn't mean it is so in the rest of the world. My suggestion was not to teach either complex religion or physics to children, so your counter-argument is well... a counter-argument to something I didn't write.
I was hardly exaggerating, half of the content of our posts now aren't even about religion or schools, but about who was being hypocritical. I'm glad you can at least see the argument is petty, it's a start.
I don't see how I was initially more silly than you, I was responding to a point made in the discussion. Usually, when disucssion occurs, it doesn't stay around the first theme for long, but developes, so the fact that my post is deemed by you to be slightly off topic means nothing, you didn't try and explain the situation to me, you just tried to insult me.
No one said anyone wasn't trying to be better, you seem to be groping around in the dark there. Especially since I didn't try to use the fact that we're human as an excuse...in fact, I don't think I even used the phrase. What are you replying to there, what I actually wrote, or what you want to pretend I wrote?
Whilst I enjoy intelligent debate, this is just a petty argument, and I'm not enjoying it, however, I still feel inclined to defend myself, I was misunderstood, and when I tried to clarify that, you ignored it, offered no apology (not that I expected one off you) even though such misunderstandings require faults from two people. I don't feel either of us are showing ourselves in a good light, and I would prefer it if this petty squabble could end, preferably on amicable terms. You thought I was being rude, I explained I did not intend to. That should be the end of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sand From The Future(GTD)
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 2:40 pm
Slayer Igraine Whether you told me to do anything or not doesn't affect whether you were hypocritical or not. Seriously, the 'look up the definition' line is getting old.' You were hypocritical because you said you're suggesting I should not be impolite to people who are not impolite to me - something which you are guilty of too.
Whether I gave physics as a example before is niether here nor there, and I don't know what exactly you're taking issue with there - I provided a new example when you questioned the last one - what's the problem with that?
Just because something is a certain way in your school doesn't mean it is so in the rest of the world. My suggestion was not to teach either complex religion or physics to children, so your counter-argument is well... a counter-argument to something I didn't write.
I was hardly exaggerating, half of the content of our posts now aren't even about religion or schools, but about who was being hypocritical. I'm glad you can at least see the argument is petty, it's a start.
I don't see how I was initially more silly than you, I was responding to a point made in the discussion. Usually, when disucssion occurs, it doesn't stay around the first theme for long, but developes, so the fact that my post is deemed by you to be slightly off topic means nothing, you didn't try and explain the situation to me, you just tried to insult me.
No one said anyone wasn't trying to be better, you seem to be groping around in the dark there. Especially since I didn't try to use the fact that we're human as an excuse...in fact, I don't think I even used the phrase. What are you replying to there, what I actually wrote, or what you want to pretend I wrote? I didn't suggest that you do it, I said I hoped that you did. Which is basically implying I'd like you to, but not telling you to, or even suggesting it. For the record, suggesting that someone should do something that the person in question hasn't done either isn't being hypocritical if the person in question doesn't demote the other for the fact that they're in the same position. The reason why I repeat myself when it comes to you looking up the definition is because it doesn't seem to have sank in yet, since you're constantly misunderstanding the concept of being hypocritical. As far as the problem with adding a new example... I'm arguing the posts you made, and when I've proven that there's good reason to do it. You just say, "Ok, well that's wrong. How about this!? Any flaws here?". You can't expect me to read your mind, and know how you're going to change your post in the future and say "Well my argument wasn't wrong because I've changed it now" There actually were flaws in that one too, and I'll come to that in my following paragraphs. Sorry, I don't know how everything works in all Countries, it's kind of a disadvantage for me since the majority of the users are from America. Please tell me now if it IS different in your Country, because you didn't actually specify in post which leads me to believe you're trying to abuse the fact that I don't know how it works, because you lack a better argument. "More complex physics isn't based on fact, but theories and ideas." That was taken directly out of your previous post, word for word. Ring a bell? That just totally contradicts what you said. What you don't realise, is this entire 'debate' began from your saying that Maeph's argument was a dud, so I'm constantly referring to it in these replies. What you also don't notice, is in reality, you're constantly drawing a thicker line between what your argument is all about, and what Maeph's argument is all about, and that's a point I'd like to make, you're argument was off TOPIC! Lol. So you might not be silly, but the act WAS silly. Yes, these debates do slowly go off topic. But up until you posted, the thread was right on topic, it hadn't swayed at all. Maeph made an on topic argument, and you came along and said it was a dud and gave reasons why you thought it was a dud, but your reasons were off topic and only would apply to Maeph's argument if he was also talking about something off topic, but he wasn't. Thus, we were left with one conclusion, you MISUNDERSTOOD the topic. And yes, you were exaggerating. I said "Off topic" you said "Totally off topic" Which is exaggerating, and because it's one of the major points of our argument (We're debating if your post was on Topic), it's an important thing to point out. Wonder how simple I must explain these things until they start to sink in and you stop getting caught up in the little flaws and start paying attention to the points I've made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:26 pm
Sighs I dislike dealing with personal arguments like this.
Unfortunately I can only ignore it for so long.
sweatdrop And I was more interested in staying with a casual mannerism.
I will not take sides and I will not state flaws or points in either argument.
I would like to ask for both of you to either abruptly stop this argument since these posts are getting off topic.
And yes I am being a hypocrite in this situation.
If you have to finish this particular discussion then make a quick resolve.
And if you must, then be open minded about the others statements.
Also re read previous statements because there are misunderstandings on both sides.
I do not wish to have tension between our members.
Although at one point it might be unavoidable.
I will not leave this as a warning, threat, promise, or whatever term you wish to use. This is actually my opinion as a member and not as Vice Captain.
Oh and I do not wish to see any more Ad Hominems/Personal Attacks from either side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:40 pm
Slayer Igraine Maeph Wow yeah. Children are an extremely touchy subject. It's difficult to decide what you need to put in their face and what you don't. Religion , imho, is one of the things you don't. Religion is far too complicated and mysterious to be figured out by a child. To even teach a child that he can understand religion at such an age is setting him up for disaster. You suffocate them, because they are so much less likely to seek out alternative lifestyles and beliefs that could be much more beneficial to them as an individual. Now time to hop back and forth twisted A do not believe his argument is a dud, but you do have a valid point. Children between certain ages are not actually interested in religion. Even if it is being forced upon them they do not get the full concept of it et cetera. If you wish for examples just look in the thread within our guild entitled "Religion and Where you Stand". This is a bit of mixed message directed towards two people at once. Okay now with the OP. Even if you are forcing a specific religion upon a child you are still teaching them about it. However they are not being taught to be open minded about other religions for their personal views et cetera. So now seeing this you can now understand that teaching them the religion is apart of the factor of forcing a religion upon the little ones. It is a personal opinion if it is good or bad from forcing a religion upon a person. Both sides of the argument have valid and good points. Regardless religion in general is basically the same thing. It is also good and bad. Hmm I wonder if The Ressurection wants to start on this specific discussion yet. sweatdrop I've kinda lost interest in this post so I'll update it later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:04 am
Kanon Vilente Sighs I dislike dealing with personal arguments like this. Unfortunately I can only ignore it for so long. sweatdrop And I was more interested in staying with a casual mannerism. I will not take sides and I will not state flaws or points in either argument. I would like to ask for both of you to either abruptly stop this argument since these posts are getting off topic. And yes I am being a hypocrite in this situation. If you have to finish this particular discussion then make a quick resolve. And if you must, then be open minded about the others statements. Also re read previous statements because there are misunderstandings on both sides. I do not wish to have tension between our members. Although at one point it might be unavoidable. I will not leave this as a warning, threat, promise, or whatever term you wish to use. This is actually my opinion as a member and not as Vice Captain. Oh and I do not wish to see any more Ad Hominems/Personal Attacks from either side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 6:09 am
Preferably I feel children should be taught about all religions from a young age. There's nothing wrong with instilling a sense of religiousness in your children, but I'd prefer not to pin them down to anything in particular. When I have children I'll certainly not force my own particular beliefs down their throat.
Of course most religious people follow doctrine and part of their religion is that anyone who doesn't follow it goes to *insert bad place here*. Therefore it's logical for them to instill their children with their own religion since they love them and want to protect them from such a fate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 8:50 am
All people are different. Children are still people, aren't they?
They know if they want to be part of a religion...if they bleive it or not. Isn't there a freedom of rights act that religion can't be forced on anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 11:26 am
This has the makings of a potential threat. "Our enemies"? "Die for God"? "Born with sin"? HA! Don't make me laugh!
First off, children, in my opinion should be kept out of politics. They're WAY to young to worry about that. Second, being force feed that kind of religion is sick. No child is born with sin. Anyone who thinks that way is either going to have to prove it to me or going to get the crap kicked out of them. Children have suffered through enough torment without being called 'sinful' the day they're born. Anyone else find that bit about them praying to Bush sickening?
There is a very clear line between being a religion and being a cult and this just crossed that line. They're doing the same thing that most cult groups do, they grab children while their minds are still unmolded and then shape them to be exactly how they want them to be without thought of individual desires or actions. Things like this unmake people and doing that to children is something that should be against the law.
In my view, the people that do those kinds of things to children are no worse then child molesters. The only difference here is that they're doing that to their minds.
Sorry if what I said was a bit too offensive but I get so ticked off when I see children become victims of just about anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
